Issues raised by Bill Joy still being debated
from the reverberations dept.
Pondering the question of whether one can have too much Joy, a set of commentaries on the issues raised by Bill Joy in his (in)famous article in Wired Magazine (April 2000) have been posted on the KurzweilAI website.
- The first is a lengthy article ("Stop everything…IT'S TECHNO-HORROR!") by George Gilder and Richard Vigilante that originally appeared in the March 2001 issue of The American Spectator. (The article blurb reads, "From Silicon Valley via Aspen, Bill Joy wants to call the police. On science. On technology. On the industry that made him rich. The Left is OverJoyed".)
- In a lengthy response, Ray Kurzweil discusses points of agreement and disagreement with Gilder and Vigilante, as well as Joy. As KurzweilAI summarizes it: "Although George Gilder and Richard Vigilante share Ray Kurzweil's grave concerns about Bill Joy's apparently neo-Luddite calls for relinguishing broad areas of technology, Kurzweil is critical of Gilder and Vigilante's skepticism regarding the feasibility of the dangers."
(Oh, very well — Joy's original article is still available on the web. Some of the earlier reactions to Joyís arguments were covered in the "Media Watch" column in Foresight Update 41, 42, and 43.)
September 3rd, 2001 at 7:07 AM
Nanodot needs to be more relable and active
I hope that the server admins here will work to make nanodot a little more reliable. Sometimes I want to come here and post a comment but I find that often the site is down. This is frustrating and I hope it is corrected soon.
Also I think the various posters here need to drive more traffic here to generate bigger threads and more dialog. Then again I guess nano is hard subject to discuss. It's not like the daily news or the social lives of the rich and famous. Most folks aren't really interested. Oh well. I'll see if I can stir some stuff up.
September 3rd, 2001 at 8:16 AM
Suspicious of both Joy's and Kurzweil's positions
I don't think the arrival of nano and sentient synthetic organisms will lead to doom or paradise. I do agree with Vinge that the future will be incomprehensible to us now. But will it really be better or worse?
Think of any new technology. It solves old problems but at the same time it creates new ones. New tools are then created to solve the current problems which in turn create still newer ones and so on and so on. Realistically we have to expect great things to happen and horrible things to happen. History, even if it progresses into post-human history, has always been like that. I don't see any compelling reason why this will change.
It seems that more and more big thinkers are joining the fray between optimists like Kurzweil and pessimists like Joy.
Just yesterday I read that none other than Stephen Hawking has weighed in saying that humans must consider using biotech and computer technology to evolve themselves into competitors formidable enough to hold out against the artificial life we will someday create. Since he's already a cyborg, albeit a primitive one, this probably makes perfect sense to him.
September 3rd, 2001 at 6:46 PM
Re:Nanodot needs to be more relable and active
I think that most of us who used to post here a lot have moved on to new places of discussion. It often happens that a forum dies out until enough new blood comes in to stimulate discussion. Plus, say a year ago, there was a lot to talk about thanks to all the trouble Joy had stirred up. Every article could get some comments about this or that. But, unlike Slashdot, Nanodot has run out of people to post the same thing over and over about similar stories. When something really new happens that needs discussion, I think folks will come out of the woodworks to discuss (then again, I think many people who were talking here are now on Extropians or maybe even SL4, so those may offer more interesting venues for discussion).
September 3rd, 2001 at 8:30 PM
Re:Nanodot needs to be more relable and active
I don't know about anyone else but i stopped getting mailed the daily headlines and so stopped coming here. i go through so many browsers that bookmarks are not really an option for me. but i get the same email everywhere.
i emailed about this very issue but it seemd to go straight to dev/null
there's plenty of news, just no posters.
dave
September 4th, 2001 at 5:24 PM
Re:Nanodot needs to be more relable and active
Yes, I think reliability plays a part here. If new visitors come to post but find the server down they will get discouraged.
On the other hand, Redbird makes a good point: many have taken their respective discussions to other places.
Nano ties into a lot things so I guess it's not surprising that off-topic threads migrate to other mail lists or boards.
Anyway so far I see that since the upgrades Nanodot has been up almost continously since a few weeks ago. Thanks and praise to all involved!
Oh by the way, anyone with the points, please mod this my thread as off-topic.
September 7th, 2001 at 5:57 PM
Moderator and Still Kickin
Just wanted to mention I've got some moderator points left and I still frequent Nanodot — I've been here since the beginning and as long as it's up, I'll still be here.
September 8th, 2001 at 1:49 AM
Re:Suspicious of both Joy's and Kurzweil's positio
I don't think the people who will take
pessimistic views are all that important in the
debate. I personally don't see many of Joy's
worries, or the predictions of other doom-sayers
(Sale), comming to pass. However, I'm still not
looking forward to technological advance in the
area of nanotechnology. I still think
nanotechnology is a very bad thing. Not because
I think it's going to end the world or result in
the enslavement of the human race by AIs, but
simply because I think it is going to force us
to redefine our humanity and lose a big part of
collective selves.
People have asked me to quantify and qualify why
I think technology progress in nanotechnology is
bad. I can't really do that in a way that will
change the mind of someone with a very positive
view of technology. Belief in the benefits and
good of technology in like any other belief, it's
a personal opinion based in your personal values.
It's like religion. Believe in advanced
technology, such as biotechnology and
nanotechnology, as a bad thing is likewise a
belief based in personal opinion and personal
values. Some people will shift sides,
but most wont. The failure of people in Frace
to embrace the internet while people in England
have is a good example of what I'm trying to
articulate here.
So what is there to argue? Not much. What is
there to compromise on? Allot. But, you don't
hear compromise often, you hear doom and doom.
Doom from both sides. (Killer AIs from the
anti people, and Killer terrorists and oppressive
nation states from the pro people).
One of the more unfortunate arguments I've heard
in this is the categorization of the people who
don't wish to have advanced technology permeate
society as control freaks who want to oppress
innovators. The argument continued that people
should be free, that they had a right, to persue
technology. But what about the rights of the
people to be free from it? We have courts which
would to establish limits on rights – the most
cliche example on yelling fire in a crowded
theater in the case of freedom of speech. But, we
don't hear technologists and scientists talking
about these kinds of compromises on personal
freedom.
For example, I'd like to see GMO based food
labeled so that I can avoid it. But, we as
a society can't seem to get this compromise
made. It's getting harder and harder for me
to find GE free food. If I can't personally
avoid GE food, it's logical that I'd like to
see it eliminated.
Why can't we compromise? I don't know. Many
of us seem to have an all or nothing view. This
lack of compromise is unfortunate because it will
lead to scientists working on things like human
cloning despite the desires of the majority and
groups like the ELF taking on the impression of
a defense role and turning to direct action to
oppose them since adequate mechanisms of
compromise are not available. It's only a
matter of time before it escalates to a very
unfortunate level.
– VAB
P.S. I'm displeased that anonymous posting on
nanodot was turned off. I don't really feel
comfortable participating in permanently
archived discussions about this topic with
out some respect for a reasonable level of
confidentiality.
September 10th, 2001 at 12:33 AM
Re:Suspicious of both Joy's and Kurzweil's positio
I think I agree with what you're saying. The extremes of the discussion on nanotechnology have always bothered me. It's been labelled either a coming paradise or the doom of mankind (the extensions of Kurzweil's and Joy's positions). I'm looking for something a little more realistic and a little more in-between.
In particular, I'd like to see more discussion of what life will be like for the general populous as these new technologies come into being. Obviously, some will be able to profit from these technologies, but I think the vast majority of people will only be potential users of the technology. Will they be able to afford to buy into the technology and, if so, how? How will the average person make a living in a world of abundance?
In the past, there has never been a world with the abundance promised by nanotechnology and that will change the way economics work. Indeed, economics is meant to manage scarcity, so it seems ill-prepared to address the world of the future promised by nanotechnology. What then will people use as currency to acquire and use the abundance provided?
One answer that I've heard is that we'll become an information society and our currency, therefore, will be the new ways in which we put data together to produce that information. However, I think Napster and the FSF have shown that information wants to be free to move around as it sees fit, so tools like copyrights to control its movement will increasingly have problems. To me, this means that information will be less of a valuable currency in the future as it becomes more free to move around. What then will be left to use as a currency?
What do others think?
September 27th, 2001 at 1:52 AM
Re:Suspicious of both Joy's and Kurzweil's positio
I think that my concern is more a case of whether or not technology is maturing faster than the human species. I'd love to see some of promises of nanotech evolve in my lifetime but I'm not convinced that the human race is really sophisticated enough to deal with a technology that has such extraordinary possibilities. Are we, for example, any better at handling inter-country relationships now than 50 years ago? Are terrorists/criminals under any more control? Even though I'm not one of the doomsday sorts, you'd have to say that the same idiots who put together computer virii now would have equal potential down the track to do the same on biological level – wouldn't that be fun? One of the other concerns is good old capitalism – as soon as someone invents anything of value using nanotech it'll be patented and sold it exhorbitant prices, even though the material costs will be zilch. Even now the people who apply for patents are way ahead of the patent offices. Current patents are getting OK'd for all sorts of concepts and methods – not just physical items anymore. I'd really like to see nanotech go forward but still haven't seen anything address the issue of how to control a small lab producing whatever they damned well feel like. It's going to be a tough issue down the track to balance freedom and control.
November 18th, 2004 at 5:54 PM
Re:Suspicious of both Joy's and Kurzweil's positio
VAB;
If you are still posting on this site, I have been trying to contact you. I am in agreement with your stance on these issues and would like to discuss them with you further. The email you can reach me at is: orderofterra@rogers.com
I look forward to your response.